Searching the QSM Database

Searching the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts database is not very effective, unless you actually right click on a word in the text and do a lemma search from there. Typing a lemma into the morphological search or the basic search box is hit or miss--sometimes it produces results, sometimes it doesn't. I think this has something to do with the fact that the lemma tagging in QSM is not synchronized with the Westmister morphological lemma tagging. I found a thread on the forums about this, but nothing seems to have been resolved.

The primary value of having these transcriptions in Logos is the ability to do morphological searches. Any updates in the works?

Something like the SESB lemma search in Libronix (Logos 3) would be great!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Brian Davidson

Bump

Brian Davidson

Furthermore, navigation in QSM is slower than other resources. Clicking on the QSM tab in a layout with only a couple other resources open bogs down the program for a few seconds. Other resources do not do this. Opening the table of contents tab takes a few seconds, not so in other resources.

One quick illustration of the problem described in the first post in this thread: When I type "lemma:גלה" into a morph search, I get zero results. Doing the same search with Brill's Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library gives me 115 results (not counting those places where the lemma is completely reconstructed). I have encountered this with several words--so much so that I don't bother running these searches anymore. I use another product for DSS.

Is no one else trying to use this Logos resource, or is something wrong on my end?

DMB

Brian ... I'm usually either already 'in' the sectarian mss's (in which case I right-click for other examples), or I'm well outside and pick it up from a search in another resource. Either way, I usually don't run into the issue you're running into.

I don't know if Mark is visiting periodically but his issues with DSS tagging etc go back a ways (as you probably noticed).

David Knoll

I simply gave up and moved to the competitors for these kind of searches. Logos is aiming at a different market (how else can you explain this basic problem remaining unresolved for years). The scholar who needs reliable search results in Hebrew texts should never use it.

BKMitchell

Greetings David,

I agree with you. But, I hope someone at Logos will take notice of this thread and start working on these Hebrew Morphological issues mentioned on this thread as well as the following other features I think are pretty basic:

(1) enable accent and vowel sensitive searching for Hebrew Texts

(2) allow users to search on the non-tagged features of Hebrew texts

(3) allow wild card searches on vowel point and cantillation mark patterns in the BHS

(4)bring back 'regular expression' searches in Hebrew and other language texts

(5) Add, the ability to search on roots/radicals

(6) Add a Graphical Query Editor to Logos4 Or 5 for morphological searches

I am happy, that Logos wants to be a pioneer for syntactical databases and discourse analysis databases, but I hope that some of the basic aren't forgotten forever. People still want and need the basics and it is the big reason people are forced to pursue other software platforms to meet their needs at least in this area. As, a theological library program, no one comes close to Logos and I am thankful that I have access the Massorah Gedolah through Logos. Maybe, when Logos5 is released?

David Knoll

These are indeed essential requirements for any scholarly bible software. I doubt whether it would be profitable for Logos to engage in such an endeavour. No bells and whistles just plain old good programming...

Vincent Setterholm

(2) allow users to search on the non-tagged features of Hebrew texts

Can you elaborate on your #2? Thanks!

(Re: the original question on the thread - the word picker in the morph search panel is currently limited to one word list per morphology, which causes some problems if we have two databases that use the same morphology, but different lemma lists - for example if they handle homographs differently. So what you're seeing in the word-picker is the lemma list prepared for the Westminster 4.2. I believe we have related issues on the Greek side, for example words that appear in the LXX but not the NT, for example, won't appear in the drop-down menu - though there are few homograph-related complications. We do have plans to remove this limitation so that multiple lemma lists can serve the same morphology in the future, but right now the best way to search QSM is off right-clicking on the word in the QSM database and launching the search from there.)